Jump to content

Talk:Cuban Missile Crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.7.4.36 (talk) at 11:40, 27 August 2011 (→‎Political Victory statement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Controversial (history)

Problem with probably opening picture

Hi, i have no idea of how to change it to show it but you can see the "code" of the picture, actually you can read it, but no picture shows, right at the beginning of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.170.126 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thor

During The Cuban Missile Crisis, 59 of the 60 RAF Thor missiles stationed in the UK, each with a W49 1.44 megaton thermonuclear warhead, were brought to operational readiness (possibly 15 minutes to launch?). I'm not sure of the exact protocol, but they would have needed joint UK/US authorisation to launch, using a dual key system (each missile had both UK and US officers assigned to the launch). Was there a similar dual-control protocol for the Jupiters, or were they entirely under US control?

Whilst I'm not sure how significant this deployment was to the overall situation, it was certainly significant to us in the UK! Perhaps this could be inserted into this article in an appropriate place? I have added a wikilink to Project Emily in the article lead, which explains the dispersal of Thor in the UK. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible incorrect picture of Kasimov

The image that appear in this article showing the soviet ship Kasimov and the P-2 flying around her could be erroneus.

This photo of the Kasimov seems to be a different ship.

http://johnfenzel.typepad.com/john_fenzels_blog/images/13.jpg

In the other hand the ship that appears in the wikipedia article shows a 6 letters name. Kasimov has 7 letters. Maybe it could be the Okhostk, which in cyrilic needs only 6 characters. The Okhotsk also removed IL-28 from Cuba.

Miguel 200.55.142.140 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. Just to be safe, I've changed the caption wording to what is used in the original source. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the problem. I obviously copied a wrong name. The freigher is most probably the Okhotsk (on its way to or from Cuba?), which left the left the port at Nuevita carrying 12 IL-28 airplanes on 5 December 1962 ; see [1], [2], [3]. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here another picture of the Okhotsk. You can see that the color pattern, the chimnee position and the cranes are the same of that on the picture, but differents to the pictures of the Kasimov, I linked before. http://www.ussmullinnix.org/SovietShipOkhotsk_Jan63.html Best regards, Miguel 200.55.142.140 (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legality

A number of edits were made on 14 January, by 86.181.130.224, adding various unreferenced comments regarding the legality of various US actions. These don't seem to have been reversed, but I'm sure they don't meet the requiremnts of WP:POV. Anyone care to comment? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Since they are unsourced and reek of WP:OR, they have been reverted. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect date

Under "8. The Crisis Ends" it is stated that Khrushchev's Radio Broadcast was "At 9:00 am EDT, on October 29(...)", however I'm quite sure this should be October 28 instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.128.234 (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the mistake. It's fixed now. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political Victory statement

I would like to remove the statement "Soviet political victory" (which is sometimes "American political victory") from the infobox because it is unsupported by a source and is clearly not neutral as there is no way to prove a political victory without multiple reliable, independent sources. Before I do this again I would appreciate further comments as there seems to be some controversy over me doing this. Thanks. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one editor seems to think it was a Soviet political victory. No RS says that and the Soviet leadership), as the text shows, considered it a major "humiliation" and got rid of Khrushchev for his folly. Rjensen (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kruschev was deposed two years after he won the Cuban Missile Crisis, and for very different reasons. The true facts were not made public at the time. The Soviets never had any intention of retaining any missiles on Cuba. Kruschev succeeded in forcing Kennedy to remove the nuclear missiles Eisenhower had placed in Turkey and Europe. He also saved Castro from ever being invaded by the US or US-backed forces. General LeMay was right - until the Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis was the greatest defeat the US had ever suffered. (92.7.1.108 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

these are personal views not based on reliable sources, and therefore not allowed in Wikipedia. Post them to a blog somewhere, please. Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly personal views. General LeMay was right. The United States lost the Cuban Missile Crisis just as it lost the Bay of Pigs invasion. In one brilliant move Kruschev succeeded in removing all the US missiles in Europe and Turkey, saving Castro, and preventing Cuba from ever being invaded by the United States. To claim that the Cuban Missile Crisis as a Soviet defeat would be as laughable as saying the West won the Suez Crisis. The only reason people today think it wasn't a Soviet victory is because the official explanation given at the time has been repeated over and over again. (92.7.1.108 (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It may not be a personal view, but until we see some reliable source for that opinion, and for the opposing opinions, I'm removing the statement. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I found the quote, the book says that LeMay's opinion was distinctly in the minority. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General LeMay was right though. People at the time were not told the US had agreed to withdraw their missiles from Europe and Turkey. Kruschev had played his game beautifully and the Soviets had achieved all of their objectives. Until the Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis was by far the worst defeatyed the United States of America had ever suffered. One can only wonder how much better Eisenhower would have dealt with the Soviet bluff. (92.7.4.36 (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cuban_Missile_Crisis&oldid=446960153"